Trump just released a transition progress report on U Tube ?

Because the mainstream media is so slanted , biased and self- brainwashed as to believe it can psychologically alter the American mind to its own ideological agenda ! Hey ! That's one way to discipline the media , they have been so brilliant as to believe THEY could control the outcome of a national election . I wish Americans were collectively mature enough boy-cot the media and make them pay for their transgressions against integrity ,accuracy , honesty and entire first amendment !

I hope he has his press meetings with Pravda and not CNN , CBS , Msnbc, NBC.

I think we all saw how the media attempted to demonize one candidate and minimize the damage of information available on the other. We all heard how the media gave Hillary preferential treatment by feeding her debate questions ahead of time and attempting to imply she was ahead by a wide margin when she obviously wasn't. They have a hard hill to climb to regain our trust.

That is not an impartial, but common bias and opinion of the right. Trump's behavior during the campaign and his own statements as recorded has nothing to do with press favoritism. Maybe Hillary was the most judicious in her statements. She was attacked over the E-mail controversy, that contributed to her losing the election. This idea of Trump being subjected to more than deserved from the press is just another red/right herring.

Its not a red herring, Cred. Wikileaks revealed a rather long list of emails with Hillary Clinton Campaign and MSM collusion. The media covered much, much negative Trump time than they covered the damning Wikileaks emails. But, it was enough for people to get curious and go read the mails themselves, Wikileaks was the #1 trending website before the election.

I watched a video of one MSM reporter saying the Wikileaks were illegal to have, but its okey for the media to read them, and they will tell you what they mean. No kidding.

Yes, but the Hillary loss can be contributed to the persistence of the e-mail matter in the press. So obviously the outcome was what you had been wanting. The press did that. But, I am not going to say that Trump did not earn his bad press coverage.

As to who was unfairly treated by the press, it is just partisan bias, pure and simple.

Honesty, L to L, everybody says that. What is 'realist' also depends on your point of view. My realism appears to see right wing bias in your positions, and your concept of realism sees bias in my views and those of many other intelligent and left leaning posters here. So what makes you the realist, while the rest of us are so selfishly partisan?

I didn't say everyone else was selfishly partisan. You appear to be, the guy who started this thread and colorful one appear to be.

But, the comment was that democrats tend to participate in voter fraud more so than republicans. The only reason I said that was, as previously stated, I've only heard of incidents involving democrats. That isn't partisan. It's just the facts.

Correction though, they are the 'facts' as you understand them. I have read that the most egregious violations are from the GOP. Those are my fact, but there are those that say my facts are partisan and that their facts, are well, just the facts.

Trump said he was going to open up libel laws to make it easier for people to sue the media when they purposely go negative and out right lie. They have committed character assassinations in unison for far too long, for example. They are an arm for the political corrupt, some of them unwittingly because they are ignorant and incompetent, IMHO.

Obama repealed the media propaganda law 13603 that allows the media to lie to us legally, that needs to end.

John King of CNN proclaimed to his huge election night audience that during the previous couple of weeks, “We were not having a reality-based conversation” given the map he had before him, showing Mr. Trump with a clear opportunity to reach the White House.

That was an extraordinary admission; if the news media failed to present a reality-based political scenario, then it failed in performing its most fundamental function.

Yes, Professor, I still say the media was as impartial as they could be based on the information available.

This had happened before with Dewey and Truman in 1948. It is possible that the press was blindsighted as most everyone else were using polling data that under regular circumstances was generally reliable and had predictive value. It was accurate in the Obama/Romney challenge 4 years ago, despite the fact Romney voters expected their candidate to win, regardless. So to think that just because they, as well as so many others, got it wrong was because of some nefarious and deliberate plot to put Trump at a disadvantage is incorrect.

The main theme of your links were that the publications lamented in the fact that they were so throughly blindsighted by events, not that they were guilty of unethical bias toward one candidate or the other.

You should to go back to the drawing board and rework your theorem or hypothesis on this matter.

Oh dearest pupil, seems you forgot to do your homework. Did you even read the source material? I think that would be a fine starting point, don't you? I'm afraid skimming the sources for a theme that suits your preconceived notions won't get you a passing grade.

Let's start with your first claim: the media was as impartial as they could be based on the information available. But did the media look at all of the information available?:

To put it bluntly, the media missed the story. In the end, a huge number of American voters wanted something different. And although these voters shouted and screamed it, most journalists just weren’t listening.

And although we touched down in the big red states for a few days, or interviewed some coal miners or unemployed autoworkers in the Rust Belt, we didn’t take them seriously. Or not seriously enough.

And Trump — who called journalists scum and corrupt — alienated us so much that we couldn’t see what was before our eyes. We just kept checking our favorite prognosticating sites and feeling reassured, even though everyone knows that poll results are not votes.

...Journalists didn’t question the polling data when it confirmed their gut feeling that Mr. Trump could never in a million years pull it off. They portrayed Trump supporters who still believed he had a shot as being out of touch with reality. In the end, it was the other way around.

Perhaps there would have been a deeper exploration of the forces that were propelling Mr. Trump toward victory

...Our theme now should be humility. We must become more impartial, not less so. We have to abandon our easy culture of tantrums and recrimination. We have to stop writing these know-it-all, 140-character sermons on social media and admit that, as a class, journalists have a shamefully limited understanding of the country we cover.

What’s worse, we don’t make much of an effort to really understand, and with too few exceptions, treat the economic grievances of Middle America like they’re some sort of punchline. Sometimes quite literally so, such as when reporters tweet out a photo of racist-looking Trump supporters and jokingly suggest that they must be upset about free trade or low wages.

......It wasn't an apparition, it was there the entire time. They didn't want to hear it, they didn't want to see it. When anyone even made a suggestion that Donald Trump could be president of the United States, it was their journalistic standards that were questioned. Reporters at some of the best newspapers in the word, anchors at some of the best news networks in the world, mocked Mark Halperin - not for saying that Donald Trump was going to be elected POTUS - they mocked and ridiculed him for saying there was a slight chance that Donald Trump could be elected POTUS.

In summary, the media admit to:

- not listening to these voters- not taking these voters seriously- falling into confirmation bias- not questioning polling data- not exploring the forces that were enabling Trump support and victories- having a shamefully limited understanding of the country they cover- not making an effort to understand these voters- mocking people for suggesting an alternative opinion

Does that sound like being as impartial as they could be? Does that sound like they used all of the information available? Does that sound like they verified the information objectively?

-------------------

Your second claim: it is possible that they were blindsided using polling data that under regular circumstances was reliable. I'll give you partial marks here; they were blindsided. But they were blindsided by their own doing:

You completely ignored the world that you don't know. It was a complete blindspot, and you wanted to keep it that way.

And their failures weren't just polling failures:

...The misfire on Tuesday night was about a lot more than a failure in polling. It was a failure to capture the boiling anger of a large portion of the American electorate that feels left behind by a selective recovery, betrayed by trade deals that they see as threats to their jobs and disrespected by establishment Washington, Wall Street and the mainstream media.

And that’s why the problem that surfaced on Tuesday night was much bigger than polling. It was clear that something was fundamentally broken in journalism, which has been unable to keep up with the anti-establishment mood that is turning the world upside down.

If you can pinpoint why they were blindsided, I'll be nice and give you full marks. Hint: it's not exclusively because of flawed polling data.

------------------

Your third claim: they were not guilty of unethical bias toward one candidate or the other.

Interesting. Care to clarify these statements of 'impartiality'?:

The mood in the Washington press corps is bleak, and deservedly so.

It shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that, with a few exceptions, we were all tacitly or explicitly #WithHer, which has led to a certain anguish in the face of Donald Trump’s victory.

...The New York Times editor and others basically come to terms with the fact that they stopped being journalists over the past month and began being cheerleaders and began being people who have a conclusion that they reached and then search for facts.

...If your job - you thought - and Jim Rutenberg did say back in August, the NYT's job and journalist's job now was to defeat Donald Trump. The editor of the NYT confirmed that. You were trying to help Hillary Clinton defeat Donald Trump because you thought Donald Trump would be such a malignant cancer on our constitutional republic.

The question now is, will they stop their effort to assist the powers that be in dividing this country with bias and malignant journalism or will they find a way to report fairly and honestly? I'm afraid that a few mea culpas will have little effect on their future performance.

Of course I read the material, I just came to a different conclusion than the one that you were steering toward. I resubmit for ‘extra credit’.

How, the did media missed the fact that swath of Trump supporters were overlooked? Yes, the media missed the story, but it was not deliberate. How do you ignore someone screaming at you? Their failure to hear those voices may be at worse negligent, but not planned and deliberate. The vast majority on BOTH SIDES of the political divide missed it. So, I don't want to hear the rightwinger’s endless whine, Ad Nauseum, about a ‘liberal media’ that it conveniently falls back upon as an excuse when things do not go their way.

As for the coal miners what is the scale “for being taken seriously”? How much is being taken seriously, enough, and how much disappointment from one class of workers going to affect the outcome of the coming election? As they say, hindsight is always 20/20, right?

And Trump — who called journalists scum and corrupt — alienated us so much that we couldn’t see what was before our eyes.--------------------------Yes, it was easy to ignore the rantings of a cowardly, narcissistic clown like Trump. (Off the Record) The journalists made the all too human mistake of not taking a man seriously who said that the Japanese internment camps during WWII was a good thing, for example.He defied refinement and the concept of evolving away from the AMERICA that we all believed that we left in the erroneous dustbins of the past. Most of all, except for the cross burning extreme right we would have liked to have believed that we as a society has evolved, but obviously we ALL failed to recognize that there remains a lot more Philistine in the AMERICAN culture than we would like to admit.

The same polling data that has always been used for these elections were used this time, so why would anybody consider in advance that the polling data was inaccurate as they have been effective with little error in the past. Did anybody really consider that the unsinkable ship Titantic could and will sink if it floundered just like any other dingy?

Why would we have needed to check polling data? One would just as well check and see if the sun was going to rise next morning.

Trump, with his ridiculous persona and statements, WAS a million to one shot for everybody, who was anybody.

Yes, there was a lesson taught here, when someone as loathsome as Trump can do so well. I still believe what occurred in this situation was a fluke, and not the norm, otherwise we would have to condemn all polls and pollsters that have operated during this modern mass communications age.

For there to have been such a wave of support for Trump that was missed by all the experts, most of the supporters must have remained silent rather than to acknowledge their support for a misogynistic, racebaiting plutocrat.

I don’t think that this quiet army of malcontents were visible to the naked eye. Even the most deplorable of rightwing rags, like Breitbart, was not forecasting Trump’s victory. The great clarion of the Right, Fox News, missed it

------------------In summary, the media admit to:

- not listening to these voters- not taking these voters seriously- falling into confirmation bias- not questioning polling data- not exploring the forces that were enabling Trump support and victories- having a shamefully limited understanding of the country they cover- not making an effort to understand these voters- mocking people for suggesting an alternative opinion

Does that sound like being as impartial as they could be? Does that sound like they used all of the information available? Does that sound like they verified the information objectively?-----------------HUMAN. ERROR-----------------------------Your second claim: it is possible that they were blindsided using polling data that under regular circumstances was reliable. I'll give you partial marks here; they were blindsided. But they were blindsided by their own doing:

You completely ignored the world that you don't know. It was a complete blindspot, and you wanted to keep it that way.-------------------------------The polls never missed the angst of that world that they did not know before, they were polled with all the others, as they have always been and their input taken into consideration. But, if they do not communicate, you can't blame journalism for deliberately silencing them.

I mentioned earlier, why it was easy to blindsight a man like Trump and his campaign, if Margie Thatcher ran against Adolph Hitler, one of those candidates are going to have more trouble with credibility than the other. -------------------------------------------And their failures weren't just polling failures:

...The misfire on Tuesday night was about a lot more than a failure in polling. It was a failure to capture the boiling anger of a large portion of the American electorate that feels left behind by a selective recovery, betrayed by trade deals that they see as threats to their jobs and disrespected by establishment Washington, Wall Street and the mainstream media.

And that’s why the problem that surfaced on Tuesday night was much bigger than polling. It was clear that something was fundamentally broken in journalism, which has been unable to keep up with the anti-establishment mood that is turning the world upside down.

If you can pinpoint why they were blindsided, I'll be nice and give you full marks. Hint: it's not exclusively because of flawed polling data.

------------------The lesson that I have learned is to question the validity of polling data in the future, as I never had to before. ----------------------------Your third claim: they were not guilty of unethical bias toward one candidate or the other.

Interesting. Care to clarify these statements of 'impartiality'?:-------------------------------------Trump created his own press coverage based on his statements during the campaign, race baiting and misogyny does not play well with most people except the deplorables of the extreme right and who cares what they think? Journalism, as well as the evolved on the left and many conservatives turned away from Trump with disgust like so much horse manure on the side of the road along with flies that followed after the stuff. Trump, himself, is to be commended for a ‘bait and switch’ that fooled them all. Clinton lost in the industrial Midwest because of their belief in Trump’s phony promises to bring buggy whip manufacturing jobs back to America.---------------------The mood in the Washington press corps is bleak, and deservedly so.---------------------------------------------The lesson is that journalism will need to refine its technique, allowing for the unlikely reoccurance of a Donald Trump type candidate, the rise of populism and silent majority that polling may not accurately measure. But, this the first time we have seen something like this in the modern age.

I personally think what they ignored the most was middle America's disgust with Washington. It is very, very hard to win if you are part of the establishment when the country, or a large percentage of it, is completely and irrevocably disgusted with business as usual.

It wasn't just the news media who ignored it and refused to give the benefit of even a semblance of courteous interest.

Edit. I forgot Donw thinks anyone not pro Hillary are a bunch of twelve year olds. Wouldn't want to disappoint him so

Oh my. If we were to assign Star Wars characters to each I'd have made Hillary Darth Vader. Or, maybe the emperor. Trump would have been one of those little scavenger creatures in the planet Luke was on.

It doesn't matter if I spoon-feed the quotes to you, does it? The media can admit to being cheerleaders, to not taking the other side seriously, to only reassuring themselves with things they wanted to hear, to mocking opposite view points, to not evaluating polls THAT THEY THEMSELVES KNEW TO NOT BE INFALLIBLE, to admitting that journalism was broken beyond faulty polling data...yet despite all of that, you somehow conclude "HUMAN. ERROR"! "Not deliberate"! "Polls always worked before!"

And I thought the media were cheerleaders.

Yes, honest mistake. The media sometimes just stop caring about journalistic integrity and just start doing their best to influence elections. It's just human nature. Unfortunate that they don't know much about human nature, or else they'd realize that their efforts had the exact opposite effect to what they intended.

I could point you to some of the most accurate polling that had Trump leading which was ignored or derided by the media (http://www.investors.com/tag/ibdtipp-poll/), or to individuals who predicted Trump's win months in advance (Scott Addams, Allan Lichtman), or that this has already happened very recently with polling data failing to predict Brexit (http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/04/why-the- … wrong.html) - but you're only going to see the things that you want to see.

Only "anybody who was anybody" would consider Trump a once in a million shot. Except the people that didn't. But they're not on the scale for being taken seriously, because reasons. Is it because they disagree with you, or because they're not liberal?

Fitting that you make a Titanic reference. I see a few more unsinkable ships sinking in the future. You'd think, after seeing a history of infallible entities failing again and again, one would learn not to put blind faith in them.

lol boy, do you have a number of gems in there. 10/10 for entertainment.-------------------

Great, then I will return with for an encore performance.

It doesn't matter if I spoon-feed the quotes to you, does it? The media can admit to being cheerleaders, to not taking the other side seriously, to only reassuring themselves with things they wanted to hear, to mocking opposite view points, to not evaluating polls THAT THEY THEMSELVES KNEW TO NOT BE INFALLIBLE, to admitting that journalism was broken beyond faulty polling data...yet despite all of that, you somehow conclude "HUMAN. ERROR"! "Not deliberate"! "Polls always worked before!"------------

What has happened in this election cycle is unprecedented. I never heard all this Monday morning quarterback stuff after REagan or GW Bush won, only after Democrats win. I don't agree with your conclusion as to the information you so graciously provided. There was other side that did not rear its head enough to be evaluated, otherwise they would have been evaluated as they allways have been.--------------------------------------

Yes, honest mistake. The media sometimes just stop caring about journalistic integrity and just start doing their best to influence elections. It's just human nature. Unfortunate that they don't know much about human nature, or else they'd realize that their efforts had the exact opposite effect to what they intended.----------------------------

Like I said, the Rightwingers angst is always selective depending on who is running and who wins. So, have the media always been influencing elections, is that why REagan won in 198o and 1984? The outcome was perfectly satisfactory for conservatives, no issue about human nature then?-------------------------------

I could point you to some of the most accurate polling that had Trump leading which was ignored or derided by the media (http://www.investors.com/tag/ibdtipp-poll/), or to individuals who predicted Trump's win months in advance (Scott Addams, Allan Lichtman), or that this has already happened very recently with polling data failing to predict Brexit (http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/04/why-the- … wrong.html) - but you're only going to see the things that you want to see.----------------------I am going to see or look at the preponderence of the polling data, not a couple that may you cherry pick that went against the grain. I should have paid attention to Michael Moore, who prophetically predicted a Trump victory. But, unlike many others he lived in the part of country responsible for Trump's victory and had a keen knowledge of its residents.---------------Only "anybody who was anybody" would consider Trump a once in a million shot. Except the people that didn't. But they're not on the scale for being taken seriously, because reasons. Is it because they disagree with you, or because they're not liberal?---------------

The people that did not were a stark Minority, it is human nature to accept a 9 out of 10 determination of an outcome over the 1 that did not when all 10 are otherwise equally qualified. Since I don't have a polling service, it is natural to go with the preponderence of opinion. What makes you so prophetic as to do otherwise? Perhaps, you just see the world in Crimson colored glasses, because the majority of opinion was not for the more conservative candidate?--------Fitting that you make a Titanic reference. I see a few more unsinkable ships sinking in the future. You'd think, after seeing a history of infallible entities failing again and again, one would learn not to put blind faith in them.----------------Well, Professor, oddly enough I say that this is fitting as well, as the only point in your dissertation that I can agree with at this time. We see infallibles fall time and time again, but we would have to have a crystal ball to know just when and where.

"I never heard all this Monday morning quarterback stuff after REagan or GW Bush won, only after Democrats win"

I have no idea what you're referring to. I was less than 10 when Bush won, please take that into consideration. Still, I can't help but feel that pointing to conservatives' behaviour instead of doing some self-reflection of the left's mistakes is, well, a mistake. You seem to do that a lot in our discussions.

"There was other side that did not rear its head enough to be evaluated"

And whose fault is that? The media shamed Trump voters all election cycle long as racist, sexist, Islamaphobic, homophobic deplorables, and you expect them to willingly give information to you?

Either way, there's more to journalism than just reporting on poll results. I know it's hard to imagine in this day and age, where tweeting is considered journalism, but it's true.

(As already mentioned, your hypothesis is directly contradicted by the fact that the media was deliberately not listening to the other side... as admitted by the media... but again, you see what you want to see.)

"Like I said, the Rightwingers angst is always selective depending on who is running and who wins. So, have the media always been influencing elections, is that why REagan won in 198o and 1984? The outcome was perfectly satisfactory for conservatives, no issue about human nature then?"

Oh, those dastardly rightwingers! It seems their shenanigans predate my birth. The fiends.

Um, again, why are we talking about them? Do their past transgressions somehow justify current broken journalistic practices?

"I am going to see or look at the preponderence of the polling data, not a couple that may you cherry pick that went against the grain. I should have paid attention to Michael Moore, who prophetically predicted a Trump victory."

-> Complains about cherrypicking-> Cherrypicks immediately after

Incidentally, I wasn't cherrypicking. The point was to show that there were sources who accurately predicted Trump's win in advance, and were mocked, derided or dismissed by the media because they didn't like that outcome.

"The people that did not were a stark Minority, it is human nature to accept a 9 out of 10 determination of an outcome over the 1 that did not when all 10 are otherwise equally qualified."

The point was not to suggest that you take the 1 over the 9. The point was to demonstrate that there was accurate polling done, which was mocked, derided and dismissed by the media, because they didn't like that outcome. I would lean towards the judgement of the 9, but I would not dismiss the possibility provided by the 1.

"What makes you so prophetic as to do otherwise?"

Nothing. I'm not prophetic. I was expecting Hillary to win, though not by a landslide. I was surprised to see Trump win, but not blindsighted, because I listened to opposing viewpoints and genuinely considered them. Can't say the same for left-leaning media.

"Perhaps, you just see the world in Crimson colored glasses, because the majority of opinion was not for the more conservative candidate?"

"I never heard all this Monday morning quarterback stuff after REagan or GW Bush won, only after Democrats win"

"I have no idea what you're referring to. I was less than 10 when Bush won, please take that into consideration. Still, I can't help but feel that pointing to conservatives' behaviour instead of doing some self-reflection of the left's mistakes is, well, a mistake. You seem to do that a lot in our discussions."------------------------Well, to intelligently discuss this topic, Professor, you should have a rudimentary knowlege of its history, right? Or, should I say honorary Professor as you are not old enough to be a real one. It's no wonder that you come up with all these arcane, cryptic mathematical constructs for human behavior, that is more rationally explained by anyone who has taken the time to observe over real time.That is observe with EXPERIENCE. And most of the time there is no substitute for experience. I have been consciously aware of political election contests for the Presidency since 1960, and yet you come to discuss these matters with me while still in relative diapers?

The 'left's mistakes relative to what or whom? There has to be a point of reference as to what constitutes a mistake on the left, is it just on the left, if the right does it also? I use it because it in our discussions your accusations have no meaning without foundation or root from which you derive the statement. Since you cannot have knowledge of the practice regarding a bias of left leaning press over more than a handful of years, I can only assume that the basis of your statement is that of pure ideological bias. Why not condemn the activities of the press universally, rather than have me castigate good liberals and progressives? But, again, that takes a little thinking beyond that millennial box that you are locked within.

Trump and his comments were the driving force of his own negative press. If the 'deplorables' believed that their candidate was the winning one on the right course, why hide? Were they so afraid of public opinion?

Just because shanigans took place before your birth does not make them irrelevant as part of this discussion, they were shanigans that occurred and you cannot appreciate the big picture without being aware of that. Sorry, you might have been born yesterday and you were, but I have been around considerably longer.

We agree on one thing, the 4th Estate was in error as to how it gathered its data to find itself so far off course from the outcome

"Um, again, why are we talking about them? Do their past transgressions somehow justify current broken journalistic practices?"--------------Again, 'the wisdom of babes'? Good God man, journalism has been using the same techniques at least since these election contests have been televised, 65 years or so. Nobody acknowledged the processes as transgressions over all this time. Now, that the most coarse, heinous and inexperienced person to ever assume the presidency in over than a century is so reported in the press, now we have a transgression?

"Incidentally, I wasn't cherrypicking. The point was to show that there were sources who accurately predicted Trump's win in advance, and were mocked, derided or dismissed by the media because they didn't like that outcome"----------They, pro Trump naysayers, were not completely dismissed, but naturally had a reduced influence for obvious reasons. There simply were not the more numerous or loudest voices. What is so 'sinister' about that?

"Nothing. I'm not prophetic. I was expecting Hillary to win, though not by a landslide. I was surprised to see Trump win, but not blindsighted, because I listened to opposing viewpoints and genuinely considered them. Can't say the same for left-leaning media"------------Just looking at your accusations and the lack of any real basis for them, you may not be as objective about all of this as you let on. You accuse the media of being leftist, the purest sign of right wing bias, No?

"Well, to intelligently discuss this topic, Professor, you should have a rudimentary knowlege of its history, right?"

Depends on the topic. Maybe if you clarify what you meant by that statement it might be relevant. "Monday morning quarterback stuff" is also not helpful. I'm not a football fan. Or do I also need a rudimentary knowledge of football to understand the topic?

What's ironic is that you claimed this type of "polling error" and media behaviour hasn't happened before in the modern age, when it's actually happened at least 3 times in the past 2-3 years (Brexit being the latest before this), and yet you come to lecture me about rudimentary knowledge of history. How about having some rudimentary knowledge of what's happening before your very eyes?

--

"Or, should I say honorary Professor as you are not old enough to be a real one."

Gosh darn. I can't be a real professor in your non-literal metaphor? That's a bummer.

--

"It's no wonder that you come up with all these arcane, cryptic mathematical constructs for human behavior, that is more rationally explained by anyone who has taken the time to observe over real time."

Where have I come up with "arcane, cryptic mathematical constructs" for human behaviour in our present discussion? All I've said is the media's strategy of being cheerleaders for Hillary and bombarding us with negative stories about Trump had the opposite effect:

These controversies proved to have minimal impact on voting decisions, indicating that the American people have rejected the media's attempts to influence the election. In an IBD/TIPP survey of 779 likely voters, conducted Oct. 14-19, about three-quarters of likely voters reported that the negative stories surrounding Donald Trump either had no impact on their voting decision or made them more likely to vote for the candidate.http://www.investors.com/politics/comme … -election/

I'm actually trying to help the media by telling them what not to do.

Incidentally, the only one here who was blindly defending the use of 'unsinkable' polls (i.e. mathematical constructs for human behaviour) was you. More irony for the meter.

--

"That is observe with EXPERIENCE. And most of the time there is no substitute for experience."

I agree! What would help in these discussions is to impart your experience and wisdom, at least to clarify whatever your statement meant. But you opt to leave me in the dark. Instead of trying to educate something I may not know, you snoot. I imagine there are plenty of substitutes for that.

--

"and yet you come to discuss these matters with me while still in relative diapers?"

Are you sure you want to invoke diapers, old timer? Depends is just around the corner.

--

"The 'left's mistakes relative to what or whom?"

Relative to nobody.

--

"There has to be a point of reference as to what constitutes a mistake"

No, there doesn't. (See? I can say things without substantiating the argument too.)

--

"is it just on the left, if the right does it also?"

Obviously not, but I'm focusing on the left. I have a bias towards the left, being left-leaning myself. That means I'll focus my efforts on improving the left, and less so on improving the right.

--

"your accusations have no meaning without foundation or root from which you derive the statement"

I'm pretty good at deriving nonsensical statements into something that can be reasonably interpreted, but the above is gibberish. Please clarify.

--

"Since you cannot have knowledge of the practice regarding a bias of left leaning press over more than a handful of years, I can only assume that the basis of your statement is that of pure ideological bias."

Or simple observation of admissions from the media themselves.

(I'm beginning to think you're misconstruing my statements as accusing the press of being left-leaning. No, that's not what I said. Please read more carefully.)

--

"Why not condemn the activities of the press universally, rather than have me castigate good liberals and progressives?"

You readily criticize conservative mistakes, so I see no need to condemn those activities of right-leaning media to you specifically. Either way, you claimed the media as a whole were impartial and objective with all of the information available. Not only is this not true, you implicitly admit to the media's impartiality by pointing to conservatives and going "well they do it too!"

I'd not have you castigate "good" liberals and progressives, I'd have you castigate "bad" journalism, especially from the left (again, because I'm biased and hold my own to higher standards).

But truth be told, I don't care what you do. You made a blatantly erroneous claim, and I provided evidence to the contrary. You can ignore it and bleat about history like a deranged sheep (without actually telling me the specifics of said history), or you can take it into account and modify your worldview.

--

"But, again, that takes a little thinking beyond that millennial box that you are locked within."

But there's no real box large enough to fit all millennials inside maybe you meant an honorary millennial box.

--

"Trump and his comments were the driving force of his own negative press."

We're just going to pretend that's all there was to it, aren't we?

--

"If the 'deplorables' believed that their candidate was the winning one on the right course, why hide? Were they so afraid of public opinion?"

Shaming is a very powerful emotion, an early evolutionary adaptation meant to preserve social -

Oh, silly me. There I go again trying to "come up" with "arcane" constructs for human behaviour. I'll just nod along and pretend there's no possible explanation for why people incorrectly labeled as monsters refused to engage with those that constantly labeled them as monsters.

--

"Just because shanigans took place before your birth does not make them irrelevant as part of this discussion, they were shanigans that occurred and you cannot appreciate the big picture without being aware of that."

That depends on what 'shanigans'[sic] you are talking about. Unfortunately since you are being deliberately vague and obtuse, I have little recourse in figuring out what it is that you are talking about.

--

"Sorry, you might have been born yesterday and you were, but I have been around considerably longer."

Too long, apparently.

--

"Good God man, journalism has been using the same techniques at least since these election contests have been televised, 65 years or so"

If you're talking about polls, that's not what I'm referring to. If you're not talking about polls, please clarify.

--

"They, pro Trump naysayers, were not completely dismissed, but naturally had a reduced influence for obvious reasons. There simply were not the more numerous or loudest voices. What is so 'sinister' about that?"

sounds like age doesn't preclude naivety.

--

"Just looking at your accusations and the lack of any real basis for them, you may not be as objective about all of this as you let on."

On the other hand, just looking at my claims and the overwhelming evidence of real basis for them, I may actually be as objective about all of this as I let on.

(See? I can make claims without substantiating them too.)

--

"You accuse the media of being leftist, the purest sign of right wing bias, No?"

No, I didn't. I accused left-leaning media of being left-leaning. Maybe to intelligently discuss this topic, one should know the rudimentary basics of reading comprehension.

"I never heard all this Monday morning quarterback stuff after REagan or GW Bush won, only after Democrats win"-----------------------------------------It is a commonly used expression that goes beyond the sport, but I should have realized, that being part of the X-box generation, you would be unaware of this. It has the same meaning as 20/20 hindsight. See, even you expected Hillary to win, how were YOU blindsighted?------------

"Well, to intelligently discuss this topic, Professor, you should have a rudimentary knowlege of its history, right

'What's ironic is that you claimed this type of "polling error" and media behaviour hasn't happened before in the modern age, when it's actually happened at least 3 times in the past 2-3 years (Brexit being the latest before this), and yet you come to lecture me about rudimentary knowledge of history. How about having some rudimentary knowledge of what's happening before your very eyes'--------------------------------------I am speaking in reference to the USA, professor. Outside of the Truman/Dewey contest in 1948, what other Presidential election since then have pollsters been in error to anywhere near this magnitude? I cannot speak for what occurred in Britain and why, as it is not part of this topic.

------------------

'Cheerleading for Clinton" is just your opinion. If you ask me, she has always been held to higher standards than Trump on the campaign trail. A man whose filthy utterances were always minimized and justified by the press as just being a part of his persona. Sorry, 'arcane, cypric mathematical constructs' were more appropriate in our previous exchanges.---------------

Itis more like Trump voters, desperate for greater action on the economy, grabbed at Trump like a drowning man for a handhold out. The serious nature of this desperation was missed by the Clinton campaign and its strategists. It is just more rightwing rubbish to blame the press. Something like this happened in 1992, where GHW Bush lost his chance for a second term to Bill Clinton because of a underlying current discontent concerning the economy, that he failed to recognize as being well shrouded in his basking in the success of Desert Storm. But the polls did support a Clinton victory bolstered on that the Third Party candidate Perot siphoned more votes from Bush than Clinton. Even with all this going on the polls had the corrct predictive outcome.

-----------------------

Incidentally, the only one here who was blindly defending the use of 'unsinkable' polls (i.e. mathematical constructs for human behaviour) was you. More irony for the meter.----------------------------Yes, there was a lesson to learn here so let's not take the erroneous 20/20 hindsight tack, shall we? Even, you missed the eventually outcome, You,that knew it all about press bias, etc.----------------------------

"That is observe with EXPERIENCE. And most of the time there is no substitute for experience."

I agree! What would help in these discussions is to impart your experience and wisdom, at least to clarify whatever your statement meant. But you opt to leave me in the dark. Instead of trying to educate something I may not know, you snoot. I imagine there are plenty of substitutes for that.---------------------------------Ok, I am open to that!-----------------------"and yet you come to discuss these matters with me while still in relative diapers?"

Are you sure you want to invoke diapers, old timer? Depends is just around the corner.--------------------So, you want to be a 'wise guy', HUH?

------------------------"The 'left's mistakes relative to what or whom?"

Relative to nobody.---------------------------Is that your best answer?---------------------------"There has to be a point of reference as to what constitutes a mistake"

No, there doesn't. (See? I can say things without substantiating the argument too.)------------------------------------------- And why not, are you just throwing things around to see if they stick to the wall?

-----------------------------

"is it just on the left, if the right does it also?"

Obviously not, but I'm focusing on the left. I have a bias towards the left, being left-leaning myself. That means I'll focus my efforts on improving the left, and less so on improving the right.---------

Sure does not sound like it. You could have fooled me and many others. Your task would be easier using objective points to commence your argument rather than starting out with unsupported biases clearly from one side or the other. What is this, some sort of science experiment, Professor Brown? Yes, I have a left of center bias, I do not deny this. But, I will at least give the other side a chance to show me why and where I am wrong. It will be uphill for them, but I will listen.------------------

"your accusations have no meaning without foundation or root from which you derive the statement"

I'm pretty good at deriving nonsensical statements into something that can be reasonably interpreted, but the above is gibberish. Please clarify.

-----------------------------

You gotta focus a bit, Professor, certainly I do not need to add 'absent minded' to your resume.

What does the problems with the press regarding the outcome of this election have to do with left leaning ideology and why pick on them while ignoring this circumstances when the Right benefits?Never have been much for double standards and hypocrisy, that is a characteristic of a good progressive.-------------------------------

"Since you cannot have knowledge of the practice regarding a bias of left leaning press over more than a handful of years, I can only assume that the basis of your statement is that of pure ideological bias."

Or simple observation of admissions from the media themselves.

(I'm beginning to think you're misconstruing my statements as accusing the press of being left-leaning. No, that's not what I said. Please read more carefully.)---------------The simple observation of admissions by the media is not necessarily leftist, is this what you are saying, maybe you need to Clarify, this time?

----------------

You readily criticize conservative mistakes, so I see no need to condemn those activities of right-leaning media to you specifically. Either way, you claimed the media as a whole were impartial and objective with all of the information available. Not only is this not true, you implicitly admit to the media's impartiality by pointing to conservatives and going "well they do it too!"--------------------------------------------Yes, I do, but they have deserved it in my opinion. You cannot discuss anything with me from anything other than objective, impartial perspective. I will give you the courtesy of the same and I Have to work at it because I loathe the political right. But, I will put forth the effort if you do. So, if you start with a biased attitude, not seeking the truth, I will give you the same credibility that I would Rush Limbaugh, nada!!!------------------------------But truth be told, I don't care what you do. You made a blatantly erroneous claim, and I provided evidence to the contrary. You can ignore it and bleat about history like a deranged sheep (without actually telling me the specifics of said history), or you can take it into account and modify your worldview.---------------------------------------Of course you don't care, but I reserve the right to call you and other rightwing types out regarding the unending flow of vomit that routinely flow from their lips.------------------------

But there's no real box large enough to fit all millennials inside neutral maybe you meant an honorary millennial box.

-----------------Perhaps, whatever, but you do get the gist....--------------------

"Trump and his comments were the driving force of his own negative press."

We're just going to pretend that's all there was to it, aren't we? roll------------------

Yes, thAt was most of it. He did say a lot of stupid and needlessly provacative things on the campaign trail. He made most of his own negatives. You may have well hidden your head in the sand, but the rest of us were quite aware.-----------------------------

"If the 'deplorables' believed that their candidate was the winning one on the right course, why hide? Were they so afraid of public opinion?"

Shaming is a very powerful emotion, an early evolutionary adaptation meant to preserve social ---------------------

Ok, Prophetic One, why did they have to be ashamed, did they not have reason to be proud about the man that would 'Make AMERICA Great Again'?----------------------------------------

Oh, silly me. There I go again trying to "come up" with "arcane" constructs for human behaviour. I'll just nod along and pretend there's no possible explanation for why people incorrectly labeled as monsters refused to engage with those that constantly labeled them as monsters.-------------------------

So, what about the right wing hoards that labeled Hillary a witch and so forth, seems that the Clinton forces had no fear of shaming and such, why just Trump?

---------------------"Just because shanigans took place before your birth does not make them irrelevant as part of this discussion, they were shanigans that occurred and you cannot appreciate the big picture without being aware of that."

That depends on what 'shanigans'[sic] you are talking about. Unfortunately since you are being deliberately vague and obtuse, I have little recourse in figuring out what it is that you are talking about.-------------------My point is that you come to a gun fight with a pea shooter, there is a history associated with this topic of discussion and if you can't appreciate and merely dismiss its importance just because your were either not here or sucking on a pacifier, than you are missing my point. There is nothing vague or obtuse, just take off your Crimson colored glasses open your eyes and see the world for what it actually is.----------------"Sorry, you might have been born yesterday and you were, but I have been around considerably longer."

Too long, apparently.--------------------

Experience has value, but I don't expect a young whipper-snapper to appreciate that. Woe, such has been the case since the beginning of the human family.--------------------

"Good God man, journalism has been using the same techniques at least since these election contests have been televised, 65 years or so"

If you're talking about polls, that's not what I'm referring to. If you're not talking about polls, please clarify------------

My point is you keep saying that journalism was rigging this contest and somehow the left is responsible. It has been doing the same 'rigging' in the same way for over half a century. The techniques have always been the same, but has only been called rigging because Donald Trump took issue with it. It turned that THIS TIME, it has been revealed that the tried and true leaves much to be desired.------------"They, pro Trump naysayers, were not completely dismissed, but naturally had a reduced influence for obvious reasons. There simply were not the more numerous or loudest voices. What is so 'sinister' about that?"

roll sounds like age doesn't preclude naivety.---------------------Particularly applies for youngsters that think that they can possibly know it all.------------------

On the other hand, just looking at my claims and the overwhelming evidence of real basis for them, I may actually be as objective about all of this as I let on.----------------------I see your opinion, since when does THAT constitute overwhelming evidence?

-------------------

"You accuse the media of being leftist, the purest sign of right wing bias, No?"

No, I didn't. I accused left-leaning media of being left-leaning. Maybe to intelligently discuss this topic, one should know the rudimentary basics of reading comprehension.-------

Maybe, you had better look into English Composition, to be a Professor, can I presume that you have taken it? I don't buy the BS of a left leaning media. So, your basic premise is shot, right there.

"It is a commonly used expression that goes beyond the sport, but I should have realized, that being part of the X-box generation, you would be unaware of this."

I take offense to that, sir. I'm of the SEGA Master System generation

--

"See, even you expected Hillary to win, how were YOU blindsighted?"

I wasn't, because I still considered the alternative of Trump winning to be a serious possibility (i.e I wasn't blind). I've given you plenty of examples where the media did not do that. They had a very rude awakening.

--

"I am speaking in reference to the USA, professor."

Yes, but polls and polling errors aren't an American-only domain. If you want to understand polls you need to look at a history of polls, not a history of American polls.

--

"I cannot speak for what occurred in Britain and why, as it is not part of this topic."

Yes it is. If you want to understand the limitations of polls, you have to look at all instances of polling errors, not just the ones in the United States. Otherwise you'd be under the naive impression that they're infallible (at least until they fail). It also goes to the greater point about the left's failures - these failures are not limited to the U.S. left.

--

"'Cheerleading for Clinton" is just your opinion."

Not just my opinion, the media's as well (those references where I quoted the media can come in handy, you know). And there's plenty of evidence to substantiate that.

--

"A man whose filthy utterances were always minimized and justified by the press as just being a part of his persona."

"Always" minimized and justified? Somehow I think you're being victim of confirmation bias. Where did the news sources I mentioned ever minimize or justify Trump's persona or utterances?

--

"It is just more rightwing rubbish to blame the press."

But they are to blame, at least in part. That's why they offered mea culpas. Unless you think the likes of MSNBC, NYT, WP, CBS, TYT, CNN are "rightwing rubbish."

--

"Yes, there was a lesson to learn here so let's not take the erroneous 20/20 hindsight tack, shall we?"

I'm not. I never considered polls or statistics to be infallible. It's what I try to teach you in most of our discussions, but you're quite stubborn

--

"Even, you missed the eventually outcome, You,that knew it all about press bias, etc."

The point is not to get the outcome "right," the point is to be open to all possibilities, even unlikely ones. I've given you examples where the media were dismissive of Trump, his supporters and the likelihood of him winning the election. That's not impartial or objective because it doesn't take into account all available information.

I gave Clinton a slight edge in winning, but was not shocked that Trump won in the manner that he did, because I listened to others who made their case for a Trump win and took their analyses into consideration. Did the media do that?

--

"So, you want to be a 'wise guy', HUH?"

I wouldn't worry about it, Depends is around the corner for all of us. It'll just take a bit longer for me to get there.

--

"Is that your best answer?"

Yes. It's really simple: own up to your mistakes. If you make a mistake the onus is on you to take responsibility for it and to fix it (if possible). If I steal a cookie from the cookie jar, I don't get exculpated because I point to little Timmy's thievery.

--

"And why not, are you just throwing things around to see if they stick to the wall?"

No. I just own up to my mistakes without needing to point to others who have made the same mistake.

--

"Sure does not sound like it. You could have fooled me and many others."

Interesting that you say that.

--

"Your task would be easier using objective points to commence your argument rather than starting out with unsupported biases clearly from one side or the other."

What "unsupported bias" did I start with?

--

"What does the problems with the press regarding the outcome of this election have to do with left leaning ideology"

I don't think it has anything to do with left-leaning ideology. Maybe I'm not being clear enough, or maybe you're seeing things that aren't there. I am pointing to media mistakes that happen to come from left-leaning media. The mistakes (generally speaking) aren't caused by left-leaning ideology.

--

"why pick on them while ignoring this circumstances when the Right benefits?"

It may look like I'm picking on them, but I'm actually trying to improve them.

Where did I ignore this circumstance for the right? You're more than welcome to provide examples of right-leaning media lacking objectivity and impartiality regarding this election. From what I've seen of right-leaning media (which isn't much) they've been better at capturing the voices that left-leaning media dismissed.

--

"Never have been much for double standards and hypocrisy, that is a characteristic of a good progressive."

There's plenty of hypocrisy and double standards from some of those that call themselves progressive. Maajid Nawaz even coined them "regressives" and the "ctrl-left."

--

"The simple observation of admissions by the media is not necessarily leftist"

Are you saying the media sources I linked to are not left-leaning (or at the very least primarily composed of left-leaning viewership)?

--

"Yes, I do, but they have deserved it in my opinion."

Are you admitting that the media is impartial and non-objective, then? Or is it just the right-leaning media that deserves it?

--

"Of course you don't care, but I reserve the right to call you and other rightwing types out"

It's interesting to see how you classify anyone that disagrees with you as rightwing. Several times you've called me rightwing and several times I've said that I'm not, in this and other discussions with you.

--

"You may have well hidden your head in the sand"

Not the media though

--

"Ok, Prophetic One, why did they have to be ashamed, did they not have reason to be proud about the man that would 'Make AMERICA Great Again'?"

They didn't have to be - and many weren't - but again, shame is a powerful emotion. Some Trump supporters took that risk and were openly proud, but evidently significant numbers were silent about it. Why would you voice your approval if voting for the man for whatever reason makes you a racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic bigot?

If you want to know how powerful the silencing effect of being called a racist/sexist/bigot is, you can start with the Rotheham sex scandal. 1400 children raped over 16 years and the police did nothing because they were afraid of being called racist: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ … t-now.html

--

"So, what about the right wing hoards that labeled Hillary a witch and so forth, seems that the Clinton forces had no fear of shaming and such, why just Trump?"

because witch-association is a shaming tactic from the 18th century at best.* Unlikely to work on 21st century Americans who don't believe in witches. Why would they care if some nutters think they're voting for a witch?

If anything there wasn't a shaming tactic against Hillary; there was a virtue tactic for her, in the form of "First Woman President."

On the other hand, associations with racism, sexism, homophobia and Islamophobia are more recent shaming tactics, and they work quite well (for now anyway - regressives have done a good job of watering down the meaning of bigotry to innocuity). And for good reason. Most people don't want to openly associate themselves with racists, sexists etc. But the left - specially the regressives - have weaponized this shaming tactic into something akin to crying wolf.

"there is a history associated with this topic of discussion and if you can't appreciate"

I can appreciate it if it's relevant. Unfortunately you haven't been gracious enough to expand on its relevance. The media's failure in the past does not exculpate their failures in the now.

--

"Experience has value, but I don't expect a young whipper-snapper to appreciate that."

It's hard to appreciate vague and disjointed experience. Either way, I'm not going to defer to you simply because you wear fancier diapers than I.

--

"My point is you keep saying that journalism was rigging this contest"

No, I said they tried to and it backfired, because they don't understand human nature and they're incredibly out of touch.

--

"and somehow the left is responsible."

No, I said it's the media (specifically left-leaning media) who failed regarding objectivity and impartiality. The left has plenty of its own failures, but that's not the topic of discussion. Remember, you said "the media was as impartial as they could be based on the information available." Any opinion to the contrary you labelled as a "common bias and opinion of the right." Blatantly false, just look at any of the links I provided.

--

"It has been doing the same 'rigging' in the same way for over half a century."

Yea I know ..........We won , lets just let the biased media be, right ? After all That is all the left HAS left !

Wrong , You're supporting the twisting of reality , the painting of the truth to fit an agenda , the lying , the bias ,the sensationalism , the prejudiced articulation of media "fact " over reality , Why should a honest person or media addicted culture just let it be ?

Can we not hope that anyone lost? I certainly hope we have all won a government, no matter how transient, which will attempt to restructure the system in such a way that it is finally back to the concept of 'of the people, by the people and for the people'.

If we have, there will be compromise and fairness. I doubt you will cheer every move.

Since I know Trump is the Greatest rat and phony that will harm everyone in degrees around the world. Once in awhile I will do a freak reports on Trump and give a few tips on what disgusting destruction lays ahead. Stupid is , is what stupid dose.

Why would any sane person want to see another four years of what we saw for the last eight in the halls of congress and our White House? Are we just going to have a tug of war with each change of president? One implements programs,another tears them down while implementing others, the next follows in kind. While the congress fights back and forth, posturing for the cameras and doing no American citizen a da*n bit of good.

The sky, according to republicans, has been falling for eight years. Now I see the left has the same chicken little complex. Do any of you on the far ends ever learn?

Trump is a sexist, racist ignoramus and some of the media said so. That's not being biased, it's being honest, because he is those things. Trying to bully the media won't change that. The only way to stop the media calling him a sexist, racist ignoramus is for him to stop being a sexist, racist ignoramus. Problem solved.

You will have no way of knowing if you are hearing the truth because there will be no editors, sources, or fact-checkers. There will be no one to hold his feet to the fire or make him accountable for whatever he says or does. There will only be subcribers. The last freedom we want to lose is freedom of the press. You may have gotten used to only believing the information you like or agree with, but with no accountability we will never know if what we are hearing is true or false. "Believe me" will be the only accountability you will have.

In the last eight years our economy recovered from the brink of disaster, we brought many of our armed forces home after 15 years of war, and millions of people had health insurance for the first time or benefited from no more pre-existing conditions. Why wouldn't we want to see more of that kind of progress? But - we won't.

What a great idea, to use the freedom of the internet to dodge the spin of the mainstream media. It allows those who want to seek the source to do so without having to listen to the spoon-fed versions that are so carefully prepared by the left and right mainstream media.

Unfiltered, and unbiased data - that right there is a change worth having. We’ll be able to look at the left version and see their spin. We’ll be able to look at the right version and see their spin. We’ll be able to compare to our own interpretation and maybe even recognize our own bias.

This step is so simple that we'll wonder why we never thought to go straight to the source before.

It was declassified during the Frank Church Committee hearings in the late 1970's senate, that the CIA of the 60's had developed the term called "conspiracy theorists" to attack anyone who challenges the 'official narrative' for people who question the JFK assassination. Of course 100's of witnesses were killed.

That is how they can say an alternate view doesn't count, without thier own source for proof. People can read between the lines and see through the narraitives though, but not everyone can or wants to.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I think he never would've stood a chance against Bernie. No offense to Trump, but if he's not insulting someone on stage during a debate, then he's practically useless...

So it's the final day. Let's be clear about the choice;Hillary Clinton is deeply unpopular. She may not be a nice person. There are so many negative reports about her, it is difficult to believe there is 'no smoke...

It has been under reported by MSM, but Donald Trump has always supported the LGBT community. Some of Trump's greatest online supporters are members of the LGBT, and are activist. At one of his yuge rallies,...